Re: Saw 10.4.1 Running On a PC Laptop Today

Travelinman wrote: 
In article <11imica5fltq3fb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
 Donald McDaniel <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

George Graves wrote:

You are wrong. This would be the worse thing that could happen. OSX would just be another OS choice, like Linux and NeXT before it. People would no longer differentiate between Macs and PCs and most would just stick with the Windows OS that came with their box. It would cut Apple off from it's main revenue stream. Without the cash for R&D, Apple would no longer be innovative as it now and eventually be marginalized out of business.
"OSX would be just another OS choice..." George, you just don't know Windows users very well. They are DYING for a usable OS. Windows just doesn't deliver on its hype and advertising. I know. I've been a Microsoftie since the 80s, and have grown increasingly disenchanted with the OS ever since. Windows is constantly crashing, even on a well-engineered machine, and the OS is not very well integrated with the hardware, and the plethora of OEMS is driving us CRAZY!!! Windows users want a NEW OS, PERIOD. 

I disagree.

Mac OS X has been around for a long time. If Windows users really wanted a different OS, they could have bought it a long time ago.

"Buying the Apple OS" doesn't just entail going out to the nearest Software Mart or Amazon and picking up a copy of OSX for a few bucks, relatively, and installing it on their machines. It also entails investing in a completely new (and more expensive) hardware platform, along with abandoning their investments of sorely-needed cash for their Windows-compatible software. So your statement just doesn't wash with reality in the 21st century financial climate.


I believe that 'good enough to get my work done most of the time' is all they want - which is why they settle for Windows.

I'm sorry, man, but you are just wrong. You don't know what Windows users want or don't want. I have been deeply involved with Microsoft operating systems for many years. Not as a developer, but as a user. The fact is, Windows users use Windows NOT because "it works, and that's all that counts", but because it is the ONLY real game in town for Intel machines, and because Apples are JUST TOO EXPENSIVE for the common man and corporations to embrace that paradigm. So they STILL pay those huge license fees for Windows, when OSes like Linux are FREE for the taking. They don't want to face the STEEP learning curve involved with switching to Linux.

If they could, most Windows users would rather switch to OSX than continue to put up with Microsoft's machinations in the computer world. They aren't inclined to switch to a FREE OS (Linux) simply because it is just not ready for the desktop yet. But most IT professionals and common users secretly steal glances over at the pretty brushed-aluminum cases of "Apple" machines and their elegant Desktops. But they always come up against the PRICE of an "Apple" machine, and don't make the switch. I never would have been able to make the switch if my brother had not given me his year-old G5 and associated software when he bought the newest iteration of the G5.

But Apple just stands there, losing potential customers right and left with their expensive machines and inexpensive OS. That Steve charges so much for his machines, and so little for his OS never fails to astound me.

And there are MILLIONS of corporate desktops just WAITING for OSX, but the price of the machines intricately associated with the elegant OS removes such a switch totally out of their financial planning. After all, they have to beg money from ACCOUNTANTS for their budgets, who are not concerned with the ELEGANCE of a computer platform, but ARE concerned with the PRICE of that machine. And the accountants are right to think that way, after all, since it is they who must draw the "Bottom Line" of a corporation's balance *** and answer to their CEOs about the financial health of the corporations those same CEOs built so carefully and lovingly.

Steve announcing that Apple has secretly been writing an Intel version of OSX and RUNNING it on an Intel machine alongside their versions for "Apple" machines ever since it was first developed was the straw that broke the camel's back. I mean, hope appeared in the hearts of those millions of Intel owners and corporate IT executives who were trapped in Microsoft's licensing web for the first time when Apple announced that they were switching to the Intel platform. But their hopes were crushed when Apple also announced that OSX would not be able to be installed on their cheap (in price, not quality) Wintel machines, and they would STILL have to pay exorbitant prices for an "Apple" machine if they wanted to switch.

Oh, a few will make the switch: Usually those who are cash-flush, and can afford the switch. But the majority won't make the switch. NOT because Windows is a BETTER platform, but because they really have no choice in the matter. They are TRAPPED in the spider's web, and can't get out.

Steve could go a long way toward setting those Win-slaves free by allowing OSX to be run on any Intel machine which meets the hardware specs. But he won't (or will he?). For the sake of those pining Windows users, hopefully, he will look down on these poor, sad Win-slaves and extend the hand of mercy to them.

==
Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that it may be kept intact.
================================================================================
.